In tercomm u n ion
SIR.—Perhaps I may be allowed to offer a comment or two on the corre- spondence arising from my letter in the Spectator issue of January 20th. When the Vicar of Bamburgh, with the utmost friendliness and courtesy, offered to approach his Bishop with a view to my being given liberty to receive Holy Communion at St. Aidan's, 1 opened my mind to him on the whole subject of intercommunion. Many are praying that the conference of Anglicans and Free Churchmen may be led to put forward, for the first time, proposals for intercommunion, not only in the special circumstances of village life, but generally. As their report will not be issued until the end of 1950, some may think that we should treat this as a sabbatical year and do nothing except maintain a judicious silence, which will be broken in December by the announcement of their recommendations. On the other hand, free interchange of opinion among friends is never out of place, and it is best in the end to speak out. Your correspondents have written in this spirit, bbt their letters betray an undercurrent of uneasiness in face of the present position. This uneasiness is prevalent among thoughtful people in all the Churches, and it is perhaps for our brethen of the conference to put an end to it by initiating bold and comprehensive proposals.
To come to the heart of the matter, are we sufficiently agreed about the meaning of the sacrament to make it meet and right that we should share it together ? If not, then there is no more to be said, and the cleavage must remain. But I am persuaded otherwise. In Readings in St. John's Gospel—a book that towers above most of the devotional literature of our times—William Temple unfolds his own conception of Holy Communion: a conception so scriptural, reasonable, com- prehensive and spiritually helpful that it has been welcomed by men and women of differing tradition, training and outlook, and might, with advantage, be made the basis of further common study. But even so, it will not be mainly by argument or discussion that we shall come to a common mind, but through a shared experience. Richard Hooker had the right of it when he said: "This heavenly food is given for the satisfying of our empty souls, and not for the exercising of our curious and subtile wits."
If a communicant, Anglican or non-Anglican, can sincerely say:
Here, 0 my Lord, I see Thee face to face:
Here would I touch and handle things unseen ; Here grasp with'firmer hand the eternal grace, And all my weariness upon Thee lean.
what more shall be required of him ? Is it not enough ?—Yours [This correspondence is now closed.—En., Spectator.]
Previous page
